Elsevier editor Jonathan Wood was recently named ‘The New Face of Science’, as winner of the United Kingdom’s FameLab competition. We talk to this 31-year-old biologist, editor and now science celebrity about popularizing science.

The FameLab competition - dubbed the science world’s equivalent of Pop Idol - is the brainchild of the organizers of the biggest science festival in the United Kingdom, the Cheltenham Science Festival. Festival patron and Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse, explains that the competition aims to “move public communication more to the center of the scientific agenda.” He continues, “Science plays a vital role in our society; it provides better health, a better environment, [and] a better quality of life. But this is only possible if the public continues to have confidence in the scientific enterprise. There's a lot at stake here. This initiative is not just for the benefit of the public. FameLab will help make the more introspective members of the scientific community aware of the importance of public dialogue.”

Science stars
FameLab has been created to encourage scientists to inspire and excite public imagination with a vision of science in the 21st century. A search was undertaken for scientists who could impress the judges and a live audience with an entertaining and original three-minute oral presentation that was scientifically accurate but also engaging to a non-scientific audience. Hundreds of aspiring science stars from across the United Kingdom and Ireland were whittled down over a period of months in regional heats to just 10 finalists who battled it out in front of a live audience in one of the highlights of the festival. The winner was crowned ‘The New Face of Science.’

No mad scientist
So who is ‘The New Face of Science?’ Jonathan Wood is a soft-spoken Scotsman - a very different character from the mad scientist popular in yesteryear. He has a PhD in molecular biology from the University of Leeds, UK, where he “tried to work out how some molecules fitted together in a virus;” and before that, Wood gained a physics degree from Cambridge. He is currently the editor of Materials Today and Nano Today, both published by Elsevier.

For those not familiar with these publications, Materials Today is an international magazine read by over 13,000 (mostly senior) material science researchers. “We try to cover the most exciting emerging fields in material science,” Wood says. “That might be a semiconductor system that will make computers faster or new medical implants that bond with the body better, or polymers that make cheaper and more attractive mobile phones.” Nano Today publishes a valuable perspective on the world of nanoscale science. Each issue takes an in-depth and critical look at what’s hot in nano research, what the top people are doing and the key applications on which to focus. Intriguingly, Wood feels that his experience as an editor gave him an advantage in the FameLab competition.

Editor’s advantage
“I think being an editor helped me to win,” he says. “Being an editor requires you to look through mountains of research that come across your desk and work out which data is the most interesting and original, and decide what has a single angle that makes a compelling story or a feature. From there, you begin to think about the language that’s used and how to communicate the research in the best way. You get lots of practice at delivering attention-grabbing content in an accessible way.” Other writers and editors will agree that the golden rule of both written and verbal communication is to think about your audience. While many of the other finalists presented interesting science, Wood’s humorous storytelling and his ability to describe science without using a single scientific term, won the competition.

Spider silk milk
What was the topic of his winning presentation? Wood wowed the judging panel with a tale that described how Spiderman’s alter ego, Peter Parker, might have constructed his webs - not by farming spiders – but by genetically modifying goats to produce spider silk in their milk giving fibers that have the tensile strength of steel. He was describing a real-life experiment conducted by a Canadian company to produce ‘BioSteel.’

Wood says it took a lot of time to develop a good topic that would be a winner. “I actually do my best thinking in the shower, kind of like Archimedes in the bath, I guess,” he jokes. “I had to come up with numerous topics, as you weren’t allowed to give the same talk for the individual heats and the final.” In the heats, Wood told stories that were also based on science inspired by nature: how Speedo has manufactured swimwear out of man-made shark skin; and how face creams use nanotechnology.

Prize reputation
The judges, including Kathy Sykes (TV presenter and Collier Chair in Public Engagement in Science and Engineering, University of Bristol) and Roger Highfield (science editor of the Daily Telegraph), commented that his mix of cutting-edge research, enthusiasm and storytelling impressed them. As the winner, Wood won more than just a reputation as the new David Attenborough; he also won £2000 (approximately $3900), plus the chance to work with Channel 4 and the British Council. Since winning, he has been enlisted as a speaker and panel expert for various conferences and has been in discussions about potential television appearances.

Science in society
As the newest ambassador for science in the public realm, Wood is focused on the need for scientific knowledge to be distributed more widely than just within the scientific community. According to Wood, “There’s a broad realization among scientists, the media and the general public, that science and technology are changing our lives ever faster. And there are plenty of instances when science connects with society. For example, nuclear power and stem cell research are issues that need to be debated in society in order to find the right way forward. This is where good science communication comes in.”

He goes on to say, “In the past, I don’t think the media has done a particularly good job of communicating science. It seems that the only science stories to make headlines are scare stories, or the ‘and finally’ quirky variety. Furthermore, many scientists don’t get involved in talking to the media – there are a number of reasons for that – it’s not that they don’t want to, but many feel they don’t have the skills, or that it means ‘dumbing down’ their work, which they don’t want to do.”

When recently asked by Channel 4 “is there enough science on TV and radio?” Wood responded by saying, “Science seems to present a difficult problem for the media. For example, why is it possible to broadcast history programs with high-level content presented by David Starkey or Simon Schama, but when faced with science, the content is stripped down to meaningless platitudes and illustrated with computer animations and sci-fi music?” He’s adamant, though, that it can be done well, and points to Adam Hart Davis for a model of enthusiasm and how to perform experiments.

Top tips
What makes a good scientific communicator? “Enthusiasm and passion,” specifies Wood. “You have to find a way of connecting with your audience. People do that in different ways. Some with props, others, humor. Mostly it requires variety and a good use of language. It’s not easy to communicate without using scientific terms and you’ve often got to find an analogy to get your point across,” he says.

Wood encourages all scientists to get out and talk to the public – not necessarily the media, if they are not comfortable with that. “There’s so much value and enjoyment to be had. I’ve learnt a lot from the feedback and questions that people ask. Their responses may challenge you, but they also get you thinking.”

Entertainment matters
When questioned if his recent win has affected his role as editor, he replies, “It has definitely affected my writing. Even though readers of the magazine are high-level scientists, I’m trying to use less terminology and assume less knowledge , but not in an insulting way , because it makes the magazine easier to read, fresher and more immediate.” Reading between the lines, it seems that cutting-edge science research is always interesting, but communicating science should also be entertaining.